It was widely reported today. Google it. The Count has apparently shifted throughout the day as voter outrage put pressure on the super delegates. Real clear has it at 15/15. February 10, 2016, 12:09 pm Clinton likely to leave NH with same number of delegates as Sanders By Ben Kamisar http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...ely-to-leave-nh-with-same-number-of-delegates
Real Clear has the delegate count tied now. Super delegates must be getting nervous. February 10, 2016, 12:09 pm Clinton likely to leave NH with same number of delegates as Sanders By Ben Kamisar http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...ely-to-leave-nh-with-same-number-of-delegates
Is Sanders beats Clinton 60 to 28 and Clinton walks away the effective winner, I hope the fact that the US electorate are being taken for fools is extremely widely publicised.
Real Clear has it tied now on delegates. Not sure if all the supers have voted. Some may shift under this pressure. February 10, 2016, 12:09 pm Clinton likely to leave NH with same number of delegates as Sanders By Ben Kamisar http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...ely-to-leave-nh-with-same-number-of-delegates
February 10, 2016, 12:09 pm Clinton likely to leave NH with same number of delegates as Sanders By Ben Kamisar http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...ely-to-leave-nh-with-same-number-of-delegates Supers may apparently still shift under pressure.
Ty for giving some history concerning the super delegates system. The furor is over the nullification of the popular vote.
Because she, and the establishment in general, must perpetuate the illusion that we elect our leaders, or the people might revolt. It would be a bit too obvious that "the fix is in" if she were to claim victory after getting beaten by 20+ points in the primary.
I hope it galvanizes the undecideds and gets people into the voting stations. Might even sway a few Clintonites - they're being taken for the exact same fools, irrespective of being in the other camp.
And how do you reconcile the above quote with the thread title? You proclamation of a Clinton victory is a bit premature. Perhaps Clinton will win, but at the moment it is a tie.
Here for the real count according to AP http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/superdelegates-center-democratic-nomination-fight-again
I do not see it as nullification. The voters got to choose 24 delegates from New Hampshire, The voters choose 44 delegates from Iowa. Those votes counted.
The average joe decided who "delegate x" is going to be? Even if that's the case, choosing the delegate doesn't mean choosing who the delegate will end up voting for(as we see with this particular situation.) The Popular vote should COUNT, it's the actual physical vote printed. The delegate vote, in its nobility was meant to settle close races, not to be a separate category of voting.
Your beef is with the Democratic Party. The current rules were put into effect prior to the 1976 election and every candidate knew the rules. 712 super delegates are the 188 current Democratic congressmen, the 44 current Democratic senators, the current 18 Democratic Governors, 432 Democratic National Committee members and 30 distinguished Democratic Party leaders which would include former presidents, former elected officials and party leaders. All the above can vote their conscious and are not tied to any popular vote. There are 4051 delegates chosen by the vote of the people. If Senator Shaheen and Governor Hassan think Clinton is the best candidate for the Democrats, they are free to support and vote for her regardless of the popular vote in New Hampshire. They by the way do. They get that vote via their position of an elected official. The idea of the super delegates was to give party leaders some say in whom is their nominee. They decided to go this route after McGovern was thrashed in 1972. It has been in place ever since. Before I get all hot and bothered about it, I am going to wait until after super Tuesday and take a look at the delegate count then. I suspect Clinton will be way ahead in the popular vote and the super delegates will be all but forgotten. Sanders is basically an independent and won his senate seat as an independent, not as a Democrat. No one in the Democratic Party leadership thought Sanders would do much in challenging Hillary. So they let him run, an independent run for the Democratic Party nomination to give their process a sense of legitimacy. But if one thinks about it, Democratic party leaders and Democratic elected officials supporting the true Democrat for their party's nomination over an independent makes sense. Why would anyone think any different?
So to protect their own interests(due to McGovern's loss), they instituted this process? Basically saying "The most popular Democrat, may not necessarily be the best Democrat.: Well, in this case I think they should revise their stance. You've pointed out aptly in the polls: Very few people like Hillary Clinton, whereas Sanders is undecided at best with several key constituencies. Sanders may have been an "independent" but largely in name only. When it comes to progressive agenda, Sanders has supported it as a senator. So for them, I don't see how they can have that disdain for Sanders, other than a "fear of the unknown" scenario, where they hitch onto Hillary despite all of the baggage.
Google it. There were many early reports that HRC had received more delegates than Sanders. You will also see many reports with different delegate counts. Sanders won a landslide victory over Clinton in the popular vote - Clinton gets the same number of delegates - still stinks. As I am sure you know.
Tyvm for the very good msnbc article. It agrees with the Real Clear, The Hill count. I think this quote sums up the problem: Liberal Russ Belville wrote about the process. In other words, one vote from these one-percenters for the Wall Street candidate is worth 10,105 votes from the 99-percenters for the Democratic Socialist candidate, he(*)wrote in the blog post. This process is undemocratic and fundamentally unfair to Democratic primary voters, the MoveOn petition said. Superdelegates at center of Democratic nomination fight again, Reuters, 02/11/16, By Leigh Ann Caldwell http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/superdelegates-center-democratic-nomination-fight-again As you have pointed out the Super Delegate system was not designed specifically to be antidemocratic, but this election demonstrates that it needs to be adjusted. On the bright side the Supers can switch their votes to address issues of fairness. So 'it's not over til it's over.'
You have offered the best argument for that position. The Super Delegate approach is old, well known and has been accepted by Democrats since 1973. Nevertheless, this unusual election cycle will test all the old ways.
how many primaries they win. I think that is about right, but I suspect that the GOP will also be just as eager to find a way to deny a Cruz or Trump the nomination regardless of how many primaries they win. Is that possible? Democracy is a bitter pill for those who lose elections - especially when so much money and power swing on the results.
I couldn't have said it better myself. You are exactly correct. One must remember that prior to 1972 there were only around 12-15 primaries with the delegates in the remaining states being chosen by the party leaders of that state. Even some of the states that held primaries, the delegates from that state was not bound to the winner. In 1972 there were 28 primaries with the rest of the states choosing delegates the old fashioned way, in smoke filled rooms. 1976 was the first year when every state had a caucus or primary. So this system is relative new. Clinton was chosen by the party leaders as far back as prior to the 2012 election as part of a deal to get Bill Clinton to campaign for Obama. Some super delegate right after that election came out and endorsed or pledge their support to Clinton. Clinton had 10 super delegates pledged to here at the end of 2012 and 300 by the end of 2014 prior to Sanders even thinking about getting into the race. Just some history if your interested. You did hit the nail on the head. According to the ratings Sanders voted the Democratic Party line more than just two other Democratic Senators. You are absolutely correct. The Democratic Party system is in place just to make sure no more McGovern's happen.
Very true. In 2012 Clinton was ahead in super delegates until it become apparent she wasn't going to win and then a lot of them switched to Obama. - - - Updated - - - There is always the unforeseen. Sanders becoming as viable as he has was totally unforeseen when the Democrats decided to let him run.
I wanted to quote this, because I felt it needs to be said over and over. Their process is a little infuriating to me and I'm not even a Democrat. I shouldn't even care.
The sad thing is that McGovern was an incredibly honest and honorable politician and man. He was also a learner with an open mind who often worked with Republicans, especially for Americans in trouble overseas - usually without any effort to get any credit. Of course, he was not slick enough to win a national election.
Factional politics is ugly, and I used to think the DP was far worse than the GOP. But it is now pretty clear that they are in bed with each other. They collaborate. Most of the opposition is phony posturing.
I wonder if Sanders, pissed off with the process that sees him win elections but lose them to a elitist stitch up, might run as an actual independent, and take all his supporters with him? Maybe he should threaten something of the like. Has he made any comment about this obvious travesty of democracy?